Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. Veterans were betrayed by the previous government. However, they will not be betrayed by this government. We plan to ensure that our veterans receive the support and the resources they need and deserve. This budget takes further action than what we previously committed to ensure veterans receive the skills training and education they need to succeed. We will better support the families of veterans who have been injured during their military service. Also, we will invest in mental health because so many of our veterans are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. We want to ensure we tackle those mental health issues and provide the best care for our veterans and their families.

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about a lot of things he thinks are great in the budget. However, he has neglected to mention that the infrastructure component in the budget will not be invested in until years 2023, 2025. I would like to hear his thoughts as to why that component was even put in the budget at this point in time.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we are making significant investments in infrastructure, into areas like public transit and affordable housing. Not only that, we are putting money into the pockets of Canadians right now through our Canada child benefit, which is lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We have also increased taxes on the wealthiest 1% so we can cut taxes for the middle class.

These investments are putting money into pockets of Canadians today, while we continue to develop an infrastructure plan that will make a meaningful difference to grow our economy and provide a better future for Canadians today and for future generations.

Today I rise to speak to Bill C-44, the budget implementation act. The bill is deeply flawed in my opinion. By the end of my speech, it will be very clear why I will not be supporting the bill. In its 290 pages, it amends over 30 separate acts. Despite all of this, it does very little for the middle and working class.

Once again the Liberals have put the interests of their friends ahead of those of the vast majority of Canadians. On the one hand, they are eliminating the public transit tax credit and on the other, they are facilitating the purchase of public infrastructure by private investors.

Last week I had the honour of having a conversation at a small business in my riding called Townsite Brewing. It is a great microbrewery in Powell River. Its innovation, dedication to the community, and obviously the great beer it makes have been a real builder in their local economy. Sadly, the 2017 budget is not working for it. It has asked me to raise this important issue, and I hope the minister will hear its calls. The federal budget would raise the excise tax for beer, wine, and liquor by 2%. Then it would tie it to the consumer price index. This means that the price will rise for the consumer every year after that. That is simply not good for business.

There are a number of really good reasons for the government to stop this.

There are hundreds of small brewing companies in communities across Canada, employing people, using local ingredients, innovating with new styles of beer, and investing in their business to sell great beer and participate in a very competitive market. This is truly amazing when we look at the history of beer monopolies of the past. Consumers now have more choice. This industry creates great local jobs. For Townsite Brewing, it creates 16 meaningful positions in the community.

Across Canada, small communities have worked very hard to diversify their economies, and this hits these communities particularly hard. Brewing is one of the few remaining industries that is domestic. Eighty-five per cent of the beer sold in Canada is made right in Canada. Not too many food industries can make this claim like the beer industry can. Should the government not support the growth of this share to 90% or 100%, rather than discouraging growth by imposing higher and higher taxes on these products? The entire brewing community and its customers are united in wanting to see the government make the decision to repeal this tax before it becomes law by the end of June.

In my riding of North Island—Powell River, this tax would also impact the wine and liquor industries the riding has.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill would amend more than 30 pieces of legislation. I found it very interesting when a member across the ways said “I don't support omnibus bills” while supporting this omnibus bill. Almost one-third of the changes are nowhere to be found in the budget.

During the last election campaign the Liberals promised to abolish the use of omnibus bills because the practice was undemocratic. The omnibus bill should have been split to allow Parliament to conduct in-depth reviews of the changes affecting the parliamentary budget officer and the creation of the Canadian infrastructure bank. The bill clearly shows that the Liberals put the interests of their friends ahead of those of the vast majority of Canadians. They are totally forgetting that people across the country desperately need infrastructure in their communities. Therefore, by creating the infrastructure bank, the government is giving a green light for privatization of our public infrastructure.

As Mark Hancock, the national president of CUPE said, “If you’re an infrastructure bankroller or a billionaire tax dodger, today is a good day. For working Canadians, not so much”.

Bill C-44 is mute with regard to the number of details that would have to be clarified in future legislation. Some provisions suggest that the infrastructure bank will be entitled to use the Access to Information Act to withhold important information from the Attorney General of Canada and the parliamentary budget officer under the guise of sensitive commercial information. Canadians expect accountability. It should therefore be established by the means of a true bill and an exhaustive review by Parliament, not through an omnibus bill.

When it comes to accountability, Canadians can count on the parliamentary budget officer, as he plays a fundamental role in Canadian democracy and his work depends on his neutrality and independence.

However, it appears that the Liberals want to make his job much more difficult. The parliamentary budget officer would be required to produce an annual work plan, which would be approved by the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate, as well as the government member who chairs the finance committee. This is the only officer of Parliament who would be required to seek approval for his work plan.

The PBO analyzed the legislative framework applicable to the parliamentary budget officers in 17 other countries, notably Australia, Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, and so on. According to his research, it is most unusual to require political approval for a work plan. Such a procedure would only benefit the government because the PBO could not undertake a study on his own unless it had been included in his annual work plan.

In addition to submitting an annual work plan, the PBO would have to provide his research results to the Speakers of the Senate and the House one business day before it would be made public. How is that accountability?

Furthermore, from now on, only committees and not individual MPs and senators, as is currently the case, would be able to request the PBO to estimate the financial cost of any proposal that related to a matter of which Parliament had jurisdiction. Any request for research from individual MPs or senators would have to relate to a proposal, bill, motion, or amendment they have made. It is this type of individual request that led the PBO to research the cost of the F-35s and the Liberal tax cuts that only benefited the wealthiest. Adopting these changes will reduce my ability to hold the government to account. It will lessen transparency to Canadians.

This budget fundamentally betrays the commitment to creating a more accountable and transparent government.

This bill also has a huge impact on veterans. I am happy to see there is an investment for additional support for veterans' social reintegration and transitioning. I am pleased to see the creation of an education and training benefit, for example. However, I am deeply disappointed there is no mention of re-establishing lifelong pensions for injured veterans, yet another broken promise by the Liberals.

Overall there is little movement and most promises for veterans have had to wait for the next year's budget. Veterans have waited long enough. David Flannigan, Dominion president of the Royal Canadian Legion, agrees. He said, “Bottom line, this budget doesn’t do enough for our Veterans and their families...How long do Veterans have to wait?”

This budget did very little for the military as well. Our military has become extremely good at finding efficiency in everything it has done over the last decade. There comes a point when we simply have to feed the people who need it. It is time to invest in our women and men in uniform. The New Democrats believe our troops should have the support, training, and equipment they need to do the difficult and dangerous work they are asked to do every day. Only with a well-trained and well-equipped military can Canada continue to play an independent role in the world in promoting peace and security. This budget did not provide the resources for the military to do this. I know we are all waiting for the national defence review to see if more is coming. Most important, the military is waiting.

Seniors issues are not a central part of the budget. Yesterday's CBC headline was “'We're so far behind': Canada unprepared for housing needs of rising senior population”. This was in reference to the census figures. Canadians need a long-term plan, something in which the government does not seem to want to invest.

There has been an investment of some money for drug costs, but it is still not providing seniors with the real help they need. They are making decisions between eating, buying their medication, or paying their housing costs. That is shameful in a country like this. A national seniors strategy is needed now.

Bill C-44 makes our government less accountable and sells public infrastructure that Canadian taxpayers have built to Liberal insiders. When a housing crisis is happening in the country, when our seniors, veterans, and military need help, I can confidently say that the budget bill offers Canadians a series of misguided priorities.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to long-term planning, and I think that we have seen that the government has taken a very proactive approach to long-term planning. We see it in multi-year budgeting. We see it in working with the provinces on the CPP and with the price on pollution. These are all things that go years ahead.

She made reference to our military. As a former member of the regular force, I am so appreciative of what the current Minister of National Defence has done to ensure that we have longevity and that the needs of our forces will be met by having this review over the last number of months. Because of this Minister of National Defence, we are finally putting into place a long-term plan.

However, in terms of the budget specifically, the member said colleagues of her own had been somewhat critical of the idea of long-term planning because whether it is housing or infrastructure investments by the government, it means long-term planning and multi-year budgets.

Does the member across the way believe that multi-year budgets are a good thing?

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to actually seeing a long-term strategy that will meet the needs of people across this country.

The reality is that we have a seniors crisis right now. We have seen the poverty rate for seniors grow dramatically in the last several years. There is not enough housing for them. Home care is still something they are struggling to see happen.

A long-term plan is also about having a strategy that people understand. Where is the government's national seniors strategy? We are all awaiting it.

Mr. Speaker, when I was last in Halifax, I spoke to a microbrewer who had started in the early eighties, I believe. He said that back in the eighties, there were probably about 60 microbreweries right across Canada. Today there are well over 600. That was such a rapid increase in microbreweries that I asked him why. He said that the Harper priority budget of 2007, which started providing excise relief for microbreweries, caused the whole game to change for microbreweries in Canada.

The current government is actually adding more excise tax, and not just that. The microbreweries do not mind paying their fair share, but now the government has added an escalator whereby, year after year, regardless of where inflation is, the tax will just lockstep up—and again, there is also the GST on top of that—which makes their product more expensive. Let us not forget that provincially there is excise tax as well.

Would this member agree that these kinds of increases, particularly the fact that there is an escalator, are not only less democratic and transparent, but will actually hamper that industry, both wine and beer, and I am sure spirits as well, although I have not heard from them?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there are over 650 microbreweries across Canada. It is a growing and prosperous industry. I think it is really important. The reality of very many rural ridings like mine in North Island—Powell River, where we had a very strong industry, usually in logging, mining, and forestry, is that whenever those boom-and-bust cycles happened, they had a huge impact.

Now we see these wonderful industries coming in, and they are building the economy. They have good-paying jobs. They just want to keep succeeding. As I said, in the community of Powell River that I serve, these industries provide 60 meaningful jobs. That may not seem like a lot to the Liberal government, but to the small communities of Canada, those are meaningful jobs that mean that people get to live and prosper in those communities.

I think it is shameful that there was absolutely no discussion, no moving forward, and this comes from a government that also backed away from its promise to have less federal tax on small businesses. Where is that 2% cut?

Small businesses are doing their best in our communities. It would be nice to have a government that actually consulted with them. I hope the Liberals change their minds. It is just the right thing to do.

Back in the days when I taught zoology at UBC and comparative anatomy labs at Memorial University, we talked a lot about form and function. Today I would like to begin by talking about the form of this bill and move on to its function, its contents, and what that means in regard to government priorities.

As others have commented, the most obvious thing about this bill is its sheer size. It is almost 300 pages long. It amends more than 30 separate acts and even incorporates Bill C-43 within it, which was already on the Order Paper. Many of these components have nothing to do with the implementation of the budget. For instance, the bill includes major changes to the powers of the parliamentary budget officer, which I will talk more about later.

This bill is the very definition of an omnibus bill. Many Canadians will remember quite clearly what the Liberals said about omnibus bills in the previous Parliament. They and the New Democrats pointed out that omnibus bills were clearly designed to pass disparate pieces of legislation without providing opportunity for proper debate or committee study. The Liberals loudly complained that one of the Conservative budget bills was 175 pages long. That was a micro-bill compared to this one.

The Liberals were so outraged by the omnibus bills of the Conservative government that they put clear promises in their 2015 election platform, saying, “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny” and “We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice”, yet they could not resist doing the same thing with budget 2017, and in a very egregious way. The Liberals have broken a growing number of election promises, but this broken promise, one that puts them in the same camp as the Conservatives when it comes to eroding Canadian democracy, must be one of their most disappointing acts for many of their supporters.

Now I would like to move from form to function and some of the consequences of Bill C-44.

One of the main themes of the last federal election was the struggle to reduce income inequality in Canada, an inequality that has been steadily increasing for the past 20 years or more. The NDP has led this battle for years, and in the last election the Liberals agreed with us in principle and said they would, as we have heard so often since, support the middle class and those trying to join it. In the last budget, the Liberals disappointed most Canadians in the middle class by doing absolutely nothing for those making less than $45,000 a year, instead bringing in income tax changes that gave tax relief primarily to those making $150,000 to $200,000 a year.

The Liberals promised that they would plug the loopholes that allowed CEOs to pay taxes at half the rate of middle-class Canadians, but did nothing in last year's budget and, I am sorry to say, did nothing in this budget as well. Bill C-44 has no provisions to close this loophole, which costs the government almost $800 million each year and leaves that money in the pockets of the wealthy Canadians who least need it.

Who do the Liberals choose to squeeze money out of instead? It is transit riders, the middle class and those seeking to join the middle class who take buses and trains to work every day. Under Bill C-44, they would lose their public transit tax credit so that the government could pocket $225 million in savings. Wealthy CEOs get to keep $800 million, while bus riders have to cough up $225 million. Budgets are about choices, and this is the unfortunate choice the Liberals have made.

On top of that, we in the NDP were hoping that the Liberal government would take concrete steps to shut down offshore tax havens, where the wealthiest of Canadians and corporations that have pocketed billions of dollars in tax cuts move their profits to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. However, neither Bill C-44 nor any other legislation before us addresses this critical step in reducing income inequality in Canada.

As I mentioned at the start, one of the features of Bill C-44 is a section that would change the role and powers of the parliamentary budget officer. This has no place in a budget implementation bill. Maybe the Liberals thought they could slip it in because of the word “budget” in the title of this important office. The parliamentary budget officer must be independent and neutral, but Bill C-44 would degrade that independence in several ways.

First, it requires the parliamentary budget office to submit an annual work plan to both the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate. This requirement could only benefit the government, as the PBO would not be able to undertake any study unless it had been approved in the annual work plan.

Second, only committees—committees dominated by government MPs—would be allowed to request that the PBO estimate the cost of any proposal that relates to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction. At present, individual MPs can request the PBO to undertake these analyses, but if Bill C-44 becomes law, they could only request cost analyses on proposals that relate to a bill, a motion, or an amendment that they themselves had made.

Again, this bill would greatly restrict the independence of the PBO and restrict the abilities of individual MPs to study the costs of government proposals. It was this type of independent initiative that exposed the true costs of the F-35 fighter jets to Canadians, and it was this independent action that showed that the so-called middle-class tax cuts of this Liberal government only benefited the wealthy in our country.

Another point of disappointment in the budget is the change that would index the excise duty on wine to the consumer price index beginning in 2018. My riding, I must admit, produces the best wine in Canada, and the wine industry plays a large role in the economy there and in other wine regions of the country.

Canadian wine producers are very concerned that this duty will now rise automatically every year, despite already being almost twice as large as the duties levied by other countries. For instance, the duty is 63¢ per litre in Canada versus 38¢ in the United States, while Germany has no excise tax on wine at all.

This automatic increase will exacerbate those differences and undermine the growth of the wine industry in Canada, impacting the entire economic value chain from farm gate to retail.

I would like to end on a positive note by mentioning a few measures that I am happy to see in the budget.

One is the promise to spend about $40 million to support projects and activities that increase the use of wood as a greener substitute material in infrastructure projects. Using wood as a primary material in large buildings is a technology for which Canada is already a world leader. One of the leading companies in Canada in the construction of these buildings is Structurlam in my home town of Penticton. Structurlam sources a lot of wood for its glulam beams and cross-laminated timber panels from the Kalesnikoff mill near Castlegar on the other side of my riding.

Expanding this part of the forest industry in Canada would give it a much-needed boost in these troubled times as mills across this country face trade sanctions through the softwood lumber dispute. We have heard a lot recently about efforts to diversify our foreign markets, but here is an opportunity to build the domestic market as well, and to build it quickly. Unfortunately, this spending is not scheduled to start until next year, when it might come too late.

Another way that the government could move forward on this file is by adopting my private member's bill, Bill C-354, which directs the government to consider the use wood in building projects. Government procurement is a powerful force that would immediately boost the forest industry across this country.

I am pleased that the Liberal government is keeping at least one of its election promises, albeit a year late, which is to phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. In 2014, the Pembina Institute estimated that more than $1 billion in fossil fuel subsidies still exist in our tax framework, so I am happy to see that budget 2017 will exclude producing wells from the Canada exploration expenses tax deduction.

In conclusion, I will simply say that budget 2017 represents yet another lost opportunity for the Liberal government to turn the corner on rising inequality in Canada.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, a number of New Democrat members have challenged this piece of legislation, the budget itself, and how they are connected.

I want to assure the member that all the budgetary legislation is in fact related to the budget. When the New Democrats introduced their amendment, they tried to say that the infrastructure bank, for example, should be a separate piece of legislation, when in fact the infrastructure bank is an important aspect of the budget.

We know there seems to be a disagreement by the NDP within the House of Commons as a political entity. New Democrats outside the House of Commons do support an infrastructure bank—at least, I have found that to be the case.

I am wondering why the New Democrat members continue to push something that really does not have a strong case. The member talked about the parliamentary budget officer. There is a direct link to the budget and some of the things that are actually happening. Can the member list specifically what in the budget implementation bill is not budget related? Could we have the specifics, please?

Mr. Speaker, first I will say that it is not just the NDP that is concerned about the infrastructure bank. This morning I heard one of my Conservative colleagues say that it scared the heck out of him. I would just like to point that out.

Getting back to the parliamentary budget officer, I am mystified as to how this is directly related, or even indirectly related, to the implementation of a budget, unless it is to make it easier for the government to spend money without the oversight of members of the opposition, individual MPs, who will look at that spending and want to go to the PBO and say, “Can you do a cost estimate of this?” This change would stop our ability to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his well-thought-out speech. He had me going right up until the attack on the energy industry, but apart from that, it was great.

The published mandate of the PBO states that it is to provide independent and objective analysis to Parliament. The parliamentary budget officer has stated, regarding the Liberals' proposed amendments:

The proposed amendments impose significant restrictions on the way the PBO can set its work plan and access information. Those restrictions will undermine the PBO's functional independence and its effectiveness in supporting parliamentarians to scrutinize government spending....

We queried one of the Liberal members earlier. His comment was merely, “Hey, that is the PBO's opinion,” and he brushed it off.

I wonder if the member would let us know if he agrees that these significant concerns, these attacks on the PBO, are merely the PBO's opinion.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that a PBO's opinion is what we hire them for. Their function is to give us an intelligent and informed opinion on cost estimates and other things relating to the budget. I would certainly listen to the PBO before I would listen to the government on matters such as that.

The Liberal government, and I think every party here, has always said that the PBO has to remain independent. If we change anything in that office, we should increase that independence and neutrality.

These changes would decrease that independence. Any time individual MPs wanted to query a cost estimate that was not directly related to their private member's bills, they would have to go to a committee and get that committee to agree to put that to the PBO. The committees are controlled by government members. It is obvious that the independence of the PBO would be decreased if this passed. Certainly that is something I would love to see taken out of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for the Bay of Quinte. It will probably be sometime after 3 o'clock today before he gets his chance.

I have been looking forward to the opportunity to speak to budget 2017, because it marks a remarkable new step forward in a lot of communities across Canada, including mine in Fleetwood--Port Kells, my city of Surrey, and Metro Vancouver.

Given our region's role as Canada's western gateway for billions of dollars in trade every year, the investments our government is making at home for me are going to have positive ripple effects at home for every member of the House.

The highlights for our home ridings in budget 2017 are considerable. Our $20.1 billion commitment over 11 years to improve public transit across Canada would deliver a 40% share of the cost of three key rapid transit lines in Metro Vancouver. One is the SkyTrain extension along Vancouver's Broadway corridor that would serve what is now North America's busiest bus route. The other two rapid transit lines budget 2017 would support are in Surrey.

Our regional growth management plan says that we will be home to a good percentage of the 1.2 million new residents expected to arrive in Metro Vancouver by 2041, so better mobility is going to be really important. Plans are for our Fleetwood neighbourhood to have three stations along the Fraser Highway: one at 152nd, one at 160th, and one at 166th; and perhaps even two more, one at 148th and the other at 156th. Revitalization will take place along the new line.

We have seen this sort of thing happen in the Cambie Corridor, along the Millennium Line, etc. We expect this revitalization to truly reshape Fleetwood and bring to reality the hard work of many visionaries over the years, including, and especially, our friend the late Rick Hart.

Budget 2017 would also make a huge difference in the lives of many Surrey families, particularly those people who have come to Canada with the professional skills we urgently need but who face barriers because their credentials are not recognized here. Every day a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, or an engineer is underemployed, these people lose, their families lose, and we lose. Budget 217 would invest $27.5 million over five years, starting this year, to remove those barriers. We would start the process even before the professionals arrived. Once they were here, we would support their efforts to get Canadian accreditation with a loans program to help cover the costs. Finally, a targeted deployment strategy would help them get essential Canadian work experience so they could relaunch their careers.

There are three more highlights from budget 2017 that I would like to mention. I think I can get them in quickly. Each would make a difference in communities across Canada, including mine.

As we all know, housing prices in Metro Vancouver, Toronto, and other cities have pushed home ownership out of reach for far too many families. Our decision to get the federal government back into a national housing strategy responds to the calls for help from the provinces, municipalities, and neighbourhoods. In Surrey, the Guildford neighbourhood, which I share with my colleague the hon. member for Surrey Centre, is where our city's main stock of affordable housing can be found. Budget 2017 would provide $11.2 billion over 11 years across Canada to design, build, renew, and repair homes for millions of Canadians working hard to join the middle class.

Another $5-billion national housing fund would better support vulnerable Canadians: the elderly, the disabled, and women seeking refuge from abuse.

Housing costs are a major source of worry and insecurity in many cities across Canada. Our government listened, we heard, and we have made affordable housing a priority.

Another acutely urgent issue in Metro Vancouver is the opioid crisis. No community or neighbourhood is immune from the tragedy of overdose deaths or the gang-related violence that accompanies the drug trade.

In February, our government provided $10 million in emergency support to help British Columbia respond to the crisis. Illicit drugs took 914 lives last year alone, and more than 320 in just the first three months of this year. This funding builds on the $65 million over five years we also announced in February for a strategy for an opioid action plan. Budget 2017 would enhance that with a further $22.7 billion over five years.

This budget would build on scores of other initiatives that matter a great deal in Fleetwood—Port Kells and in every community across the country, important measures like the new Canada caregiver credit that would help those needing care and the families providing that care.

Improvements to our family reunification program are helping families reunite more quickly, something that matters a lot in many homes in Fleetwood—Port Kells. We also cannot underestimate the impact of the first full year of the Canada child benefit, over $22 billion in tax-free support for families that need it the most. It is putting food on kitchen tables in Fleetwood—Port Kells and across Canada, lifting more than 300,000 children out of poverty, and depending on the multiplier one uses, sparking over $200 billion in economic activity.

Mr. Speaker, there is a new team in town. The Kitchener-Waterloo Titans basketball club is the newest member of the National Basketball League of Canada, Canada's only professional men's basketball league.

On December 26, the KW Titans tipped off their first 40-game season against the Orangeville A's. The season has flown by. Playoffs start tomorrow against the Windsor Express, with two games away and then two at home in the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium.

Congratulations to Ball Construction, Leon Martin, and InnoSoft Canada for their entrepreneurship in bringing the franchise to Waterloo region, and to the league for providing aspiring basketball players in Canada and the United States with the opportunity to continue their playing career in a professional setting.

Mr. Speaker, spring is upon us, which signals the start of the tourist season in my riding of Niagara Falls, which includes the towns of Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie. This season will be especially busy, and local businesses are looking forward as Niagara gears up to celebrate Canada's 150th birthday.

Whether it is touring Niagara's many fine wineries, shopping at various outlet centres, taking in shows at the Shaw festival, golfing on the many scenic golf courses, enjoying time with the family on Clifton Hill, bicycling, or visiting the national historic sites across the riding, there is plenty for everyone to see and do.

We are fortunate and blessed to be Canadians. We owe so much thanks and appreciation to Sir John A. Macdonald and our Fathers of Confederation for laying out the foundation that has built the Canada that we know and love today.

To help everyone celebrate Canada's 150th birthday, I want everyone to know they are invited to Niagara. I know they will love it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Eddy Dykerman, recently inducted into the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.

Eddy, along with his father Bert and brother Gerald, originally established Brookfield Gardens, a mixed vegetable farm selling to local, Canadian, and overseas markets. In 2008, with his son Matthew, they added Red Soil Organics, producing organic produce for similar markets.

Eddy is a leader in environmentally sustainable farming and on-farm food safety. He implemented integrated pest management and nutrient management programs, constructed berms and grassed waterways, and built collection and irrigation ponds to control water runoff. In 2012, the farm received the Gilbert R. Clements Award for Excellence in Environmental Farm Planning.

Eddy serves on numerous organizations, including the Federation of Agriculture, the PEI Horticultural Association, and has supported Farmers Helping Farmers in Kenya. He was instrumental in developing the Canada gap program and led the school healthy snacks initiative.

Mr. Speaker, on April 27 I had the privilege of witnessing firsthand the leadership of Pôle de l'économie sociale de l'agglomération de Longueuil, which is an umbrella organization that assists with the development of the social economy or, to quote Jean-Martin Aussant, “collective entrepreneurship”.

I was especially proud of Rendez-vous de l'économie sociale, which was held in Longueuil, because it gave me a chance to see yet again how enthusiastic our community is about collective entrepreneurship. Look at our local media including the Point Sud newspaper or the radio station FM 103.3, or our employment reintegration services organizations such as the Batifolerie or Certex shops. Let us not forget our cultural community such as the Théâtre de la Ville, the Longueuil symphony orchestra, and our young performers at Théâtre du 450. What can I say about our early childhood centres, which have been the pride of Quebeckers and the people of greater Longueuil for 20 years.

Quebec is a world leader in the social economy because of the contribution of people like the citizens of Longueuil.

I thank everyone who works in the social economy because every one of their actions help not only the economy of Longueuil and Saint-Hubert to be healthier, but also our community to be more dynamic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank my distinguished colleagues from all parties for their welcome. I am honoured to be the first woman to be elected in the riding of Ottawa—Vanier.

I look forward to honouring and building on the legacy of our dear friend and colleague, Mr. Bélanger.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank those who have volunteered their time on not only my campaign, but all campaigns during the recent by-election. Their work has helped strengthen our democracy.

I very much look forward to working on behalf of my constituents, and I invite them to share their ideas with me in order to strengthen our diverse and dynamic community.

I thank the constituents of Ottawa—Vanier for putting their trust in me.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to an exceptional woman who is here with us today. Johanne Landry is courageous and tenacious in her work as an advocate for people with reduced mobility.

Ms. Landry has had multiple sclerosis for more than 20 years, was confined to a wheelchair for 17, and was no longer expecting much from life. However, things changed for her as a result of her son's invention. She was given a new lease on life with the Keeogo exoskeleton and its benefits.

Today, with the help of Keeogo, Ms. Landry is here. She can walk, is happy, gives hope to others, enjoys life, and spends her time with her family and grandchildren.

She is asking the government to make the exoskeleton available as a rehabilitation device to help others like her and to ensure that they have the same tax credits as people in wheelchairs—

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honoured and so very proud to rise in the House today to represent the people of Saint-Laurent, on whose behalf I would like to sincerely thank Mr. Dion, who represented us so well for 21 years.

It is an honour to have won the Saint-Laurent nomination on International Women's Day, the day when 338 young women sat in this very House inspiring myself and young women across Canada.

I am especially grateful to my constituents for having faith in me. I will honour that faith by working very hard on their behalf. No matter where I am on Parliament Hill, the people of Saint-Laurent will always be in my thoughts and in my heart.

I believe that Canada is the best country in the world, and I am very proud to stand here alongside my colleagues to represent Saint-Laurent residents and all of Canada.

Recently in the Prairies two high profile violent events occurred where young indigenous women were killed and severely hurt. These events occurred while people stood by and recorded these incidents. The freedom of the violence calls into question our own humanity.

I am a supporter of the Moose Hide Campaign and it is time that we raise indigenous women above our current beliefs.

My aunts, cousins, daughter, and friends are beautiful. They are courageous, humble, intelligent, loving, respectful, honest, hard-working. They deserve additional protection of our laws so people think twice before they destroy lives.

Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Ancaster, the greater city of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and, indeed, the world lost an incredible force for good a couple of weeks ago with the passing of Ellie Voortman. Ellie had many accolades and community recognitions to her credit and her reach was far beyond our community.

The John & Ellie Voortman Charitable Foundation supported numerous projects and humanitarian causes from the inner city of Hamilton to the far corners of the globe. John and Ellie were successful in business and in life. She was John's strength and love. Together they founded Oakrun Farm Bakery and raised a beautiful, loving family, championship dogs, and lived every day to make the world around them a better place.

It would take hours to describe the many causes they supported and honours bestowed, but the recognition did not matter to Ellie. She generally eschewed the limelight. With humility, poise, and grace, she lived the words of her favourite quote from Theodore Roosevelt, “Do what you can, with what you've got, where you are.” All I can say is this is an understatement in describing the extraordinary impact of Ellie Voortman. She will be sorely missed by all.